DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 07, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues – “Barton's isolated reference to "a webhook" is merely a technique for obtaining telemetry metrics, but Barton does not teach or reasonably suggest the claimed webhook-driven synchronization and redirection as recited by claim 21.”
According to the claim the redirect to a resource provider by using a webhook. In Barton, the request which is also the request are used to determine which resources should be selected for deployment based on the metrics. The request is clearly for free resources and the determining factor includes the metrics.
Applicant argues – “See Barton, paragraphs 0040. Barton's isolated reference to "a webhook" is merely a technique for obtaining telemetry metrics, but Barton does not teach or reasonably suggest the claimed webhook-driven synchronization and redirection as recited by claim 21.”
The claim language does not recite synchronization. The actual claim language is redirecting the “deployment” of the service request to provider of “available” resources to fulfill the resources. There appears to be orchestration but not synchronization. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,” webhook-driven synchronization”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues – “Huang, like Burton, does not teach or reasonably suggest intercepting a service request from an application and redirecting deployment of the service request to a resource provider of the hybrid cloud with available computing resources to fulfill the service request based at least in part on the local resource pool and by using a webhook as recited by claim 21. Accordingly, adding Huang's address information to Barton's telemetry-based workload placement still would not yield the claimed two-phase webhook usage or the claimed local/global resource-pool synchronization as recited by claim 21.”
A two-phase webhook process is not recited in applicant’s claims language. From the claim language the deployment of a service request is redirected in part by using a webhook. None of the details of integration using the webhook are recited in the claims. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because applicant is requesting consideration of elements not claimed. Also both Barton and Huang provide for the allocation of resources in a cloud based environment.
Applicant argues – “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's hindsight reconstruction is insufficient under the articulated-reasoning requirement reflected in MPEP # 2143 and the analogous-art/motivation framework of MPEP # 2141.01(a).”
"To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references." Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). (MPEP 2142). Applicant’s claims as written lack inclusion of the coordination of the updates to the resource with features of the synchronization as applicant argues. Reflecting updates without orchestration operations which are part of deployment in the workload (from application request) as is claimed but without synchronization of the updates in a particular manner which is argued but not claimed is reflected in the combination of Barton and Huang. Orchestration usage of resources as provided by the Barton-Huang is provided without hindsight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21, 25-26, 28-29, 33-34, 38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al., US 20230236899 A1 (hereafter referred to as Barton) in view of Huang et al., US 20200076902 A1 (hereafter referred to as Huang)
A. Claim 34, Barton teaches an apparatus (p. 5, “a system that uses an energy telemetry engine to help dynamically place workloads in different cloud services.” And p. 10, “The ETE can be used to rank the different host locations (e.g., different data according to their EEQ.”) comprising:
processing circuitry coupled to a memory (p. 62, “The chipset 506 can provide an interface to a RAM 508, used as the main memory in the computer 500.” … ) to store instructions (p. 62, “The chipset 506 can further provide an interface to a computer-readable storage medium such as a read-only memory (“ROM”) 510 or non-volatile RAM (“NVRAM”) for storing basic routines …”) and (a local resource pool); and
to receive one or more updates to a global resource pool of a hybrid cloud (p. 10, “The ETE [Energy Telemetry Engine] can be used to rank the different host locations (e.g., different data according to their EEQ. In some examples, one or more other metrics (e.g., latency, bandwidth, . . . ) may be used to identify any POPs that do not meet specified conditions (e.g., latency constraints, bandwidth constraints, . . . ). “ The updates of resources represented by their metrics. And p. 22, “… other metrics may also be used to assist in determining a suitable candidate. These metrics may include but are not limited to … network reachability, path changes, availability metrics, … and the like.” Availability information providing indication of status.) and updating the local resource pool with the one or more updates to the global resource pool (p. 49, “the host locations may be one or more cloud services, such as cloud services 102A-102N as illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, and/or one or more data centers of one or more cloud service providers.” The “other metrics” for availability information and “location information” will reflect local resources. And p. 47, “These preferences can include but are not limited to prefer a workload with a lower EEQ … choose the nearest host location…”);
intercept a service request from an application (p. 11, “… a ‘workload’ refers to any application, service, or other amount of work that is executed by one or more computing resources of a data center.” And p. 12, “… a ‘workload’ refers to any application, service, or other amount of work that is executed by one or more computing resources of a data center.” Requests from the workload requiring more resources.);
redirect deployment of the service request to a resource provider of the hybrid cloud (p. 53, “…[T]he ETE 108 may cause a workload to be migrated to computing resources of a selected data center of a cloud service provider 102.” ) with available computing resources to fulfill the service request based at least in part on the local resource pool and by using a webhook (p. 56, “the EEQs for the different host locations are generated. “ Host locations correlated to the resource providers. p. 57, “other metric data may be obtained/accessed. As discussed above, the metric(s)107 may be obtained through public means (e.g. an API, a webhook, etc.) … “ By using webhooks events of the metrics and other metrics are notified as registered. In Barton the “other metrics” include location information. “The metric(s) 107 may include but are not limited to packet loss metrics, latency metrics, jitter metrics, available bandwidth, capacity, response time metrics, network reachability, path changes, availability metrics, connect time metrics, and the like.”);
send the service request to the resource provider (p. 58, “…[t]he ETE 108 may select the host locations that are candidate host locations when a host location is within a specified efficiency and when the host location performs at the specified parameters (e.g., less than a specified latency).”). Barton does not specifically teach the location information is an IP address. However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches the location information is an Internet Protocol (IP) address (p. 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barton to incorporate address location information from Huang as an equivalent substitution. The motivation would have been Huang registers resources from a connector using the associated IP address.
Claim 21 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 34 above. Claim 21 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 29 is at least one least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations of the apparatus of claim 34 above. Claim 29 is rejected on as similar rationale.
B. Claim 26, Barton-Huang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the resource provider comprises a computing system of the hybrid cloud (p. 59, “a cloud may be configured as a private cloud to be used by one or more particular customers or client computers 411-414 and/or over a private network. In other embodiments, public clouds or hybrid public-private clouds may be used by other customers over an open or hybrid networks.” And p. 62, “Referring now to the physical hardware layer of a cloud computing environment, availability zones 401-402 (or zones) may refer to a collocated set of physical computing resources.” See also p. 63, “each zone 401-402 may include an arrangement of various physical hardware components (or computing resources) 403-405, for example, physical hosting resources (or processing resources), physical network resources, physical storage resources, switches, and additional hardware resources that may be used to provide cloud computing services to customers.”).
C. Claim 38, Barton-Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the global resource pool and the local resource pool comprise a plurality of computing resources at a plurality of resource providers in the hybrid cloud available to fulfill service requests from the application (Barton, p. 47, “These preferences can include but are not limited to prefer a workload with a lower EEQ, choose a workload with a lower EEQ with conditions (e.g. if within latency requirements for the workload), choose the nearest host location, and the like.”).
Claim 25 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 38 above. Claim 25 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 33 is at least one least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations of the apparatus of claim 38 above. Claim 33 is rejected on as similar rationale.
D. Claim 40, Barton-Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the hybrid cloud comprises the apparatus and a plurality of resource providers situated in a same local computing environment (Barton, one cloud service provider, p. 49, “the host locations may be one or more cloud services, such as cloud services 102A-102N as illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, and/or one or more data centers of one or more cloud service providers.”), wherein the processing circuitry comprises application processing circuitry (p. 62, “The chipset 506 can provide an interface to a RAM 508, used as the main memory in the computer 500.” And p. 62, “The chipset 506 can further provide an interface to a computer-readable storage medium such as a read-only memory (“ROM”) 510 or non-volatile RAM (“NVRAM”) for storing basic routines …” and applications. See also p. 11, “…[A] “workload” refers to any application, service, or other amount of work that is executed by one or more computing resources of a data center.”) or graphics processing circuitry.
Claim 28 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 40 above. Claim 28 is rejected on a similar rationale. wherein the computing device comprises processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having application processing circuitry or graphics processing circuitry (p. 62, “The chipset 506 can provide an interface to a RAM 508, used as the main memory in the computer 500.” … ) to store instructions (p. 62, “The chipset 506 can further provide an interface to a computer-readable storage medium such as a read-only memory (“ROM”) 510 or non-volatile RAM (“NVRAM”) for storing basic routines …”).
Claim(s) 22-24, 30-32 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton and Huang as applied to claims 21, 29 and 34 above, and further in view of Cherukuri et al., US 20180267990 A1 (hereafter referred to as Cherukuri).
A. Claim 35, Barton-Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the processor circuitry is further to:
receive an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the resource provider (Huang, p. 122, Steps 801-803, “In particular, the register message for the first resource 725 may include an IP address for the connector 727 and an IP address for the host 729, a network address (e.g., IP or multicast address) for a resource group associated with the first resource 725, and an identifier for the resource group associated with the first resource 725. Resources may also register with the broker 714 (not shown).”);
redirect a domain name service (DNS) of the application to the location information of the resource provider (p. 46, “When a Domain Name System (DNS) request 204 is received for connecting to the workload, a DNS resolver associated with SIG 220 accesses the telemetry data 210 from the ETE 108 to determine the location of the workload.” p. 44, “a Secure Internet Gateway (SIG) 220 that may be used to assist in dynamically placing workloads using cloud service 102 energy efficiency quotients and/or other data.”); and
a secure gateway between a cloud manager and the apparatus when the hybrid cloud is initiated (Barton, p, 45, “the SIG 220 includes security component 216 that integrates a secure web gateway, a firewall, DNS-layer security, and cloud access security broker (CASB) functionality. A Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) acts as an intermediary between cloud providers and cloud consumers to enforce an organization's security policies for cloud application access and usage.”). Barton-Huang does not specifically teach set up a secure connection. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cherukuri teaches setup a secure connection ( p. 22, “Cloud gateway 20 can be responsible for establishing secure tunnel 18 for interconnecting enterprise network 12 (including components and resources within enterprise network 12) with cloud gateway 22.” And p. 30, “a hybrid cloud facilitates interaction between a private cloud (such as that provided by enterprise network 12) and a public cloud (such as that provided by cloud 14), where the private cloud can join the public cloud to utilize the public cloud's resources in a secure and scalable way.” See also p. 26, “cloud manager 36 facilitates hybrid cloud operations in cloud 14, manages network resources in cloud 14 that are allocated to enterprise network 12, dynamically instantiates cloud gateway 20 and/or cloud gateway 22,…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barton-Huang to incorporate secure connections from Cherukuri to facilitate protected connections between cloud components. The motivation would have to utilize the security features available and thereby protect network data.
Claim 22 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 35 above. Claim 22 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 30 is at least one least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations of the apparatus of claim 35 above. Claim 30 is rejected on as similar rationale.
B. Claim 36, Barton-Huang- Cherukuri teaches the apparatus of claim 15 comprising the processor to register to receive the one or more updates to the global resource pool from the cloud manager (Huang, p. 122, “For example, the register message for the first resource 725 may include one or more network addresses or host names for the first resource 725.” And p. 123, “At 805, the configuration 712 may determine, based on the register messages transmitted at 801-803, resource information. The resource information may include the address information for the resources and/or the resource groups. As one example, the resource information may include an IP address for the connector 727, an IP address for the host 729, an IP address for the connector 732, an IP address for the host 734, an IP address for the connector 752, and an IP address for the host 754, and network addresses for each of the three resource groups associated with the resources 725, 730 and 750.”).
Claim 23 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 36 above. Claim 23 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 31 is at least one least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations of the apparatus of claim 36 above. Claim 31 is rejected on as similar rationale.
C. Claim 37, Barton-Huang- Cherukuri teaches the apparatus of claim 16 comprising the processor to receive the one or more updates to the global resource pool using one or more webhooks (Barton, p. 32, “According to some examples, these EEMs 106 and/or the metric(s) 107 may be obtained through public means such as an application programming interface (API), a webhook …” Availability interpreted as updates to global pool.).
Claim 24 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 37 above. Claim 24 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Claim 32 is at least one least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to perform operations of the apparatus of claim 37 above. Claim 32 is rejected on as similar rationale.
Claim(s) 27 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton and Huang as applied to claims 21 and 34 above, and further in view of Moroski et al., US 20220237053 A1 (hereafter referred to as Moroski).
A. Claim 39, Barton-Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 34, as cited above. Barton-Huang does not specifically teach wherein the hybrid cloud comprises a software defined network. However, Moroski teaches wherein the hybrid cloud comprises a software defined network (p. 34, “The private cloud computing environment 302 and the public cloud computing environment 304 of the hybrid cloud system 300 include computing and/or storage infrastructures to support a number of virtual computing instances 308A and 308B in the form of virtual machines.” And p. 43, “at least some of the virtual computing environments 336 may be configured as software-defined data centers (SDDCs).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barton-Huang to incorporate software defined networks from Moroski to expand industrial applicability. The motivation would have been to expand ability to provide resources from other types of networks that provide virtualized environments.
Claim 27 is method comprising steps similar to the operations of the apparatus of claim 39 above. Claim 27 is rejected on a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ionescu et al., US 20220091830 A1, teaches the system and method can provide a “cloud based” development platform; wherein project, and project components, may be created, updated, compiled, and executed on cloud-based, or other public/global computing platforms. As part of a Continuous Integration (CI) implementation, the system may additionally watch for changes of a source control management (SCM) repository (e.g., by polling or via webhooks). That is, the system may include or connect to an associated SCM repository. The system would trigger the build every time the main branch (or other configured branch/branches) of the SCM repository has new changes.
Cuan Xu, CN 115857982 A, teaches the invention relates to container management technology field, especially relates to a container cluster deployment method, device, system, electronic device and storage medium. In one embodiment, obtaining the service code from the code warehouse, comprising: and obtaining the service code from the code warehouse by using the webhook mechanism.The webhook is a URL for receiving HTTP POST (or GET, PUT, DELETE). when the event occurs, the webhook actively sends information to the URL connected with the webhook. different from the request-response type, using webhook, which can real time induction change. under the webhook model, the server updates the resource needed to be provided, and then automatically as the update to the client (server is the push data), the client is not the requester, but is a passive receiver.
Marndi et al., US 20200252475 A1, teaches in accordance with other implementations, the private cloud computing environment may be the private portion of a hybrid cloud that contains IT infrastructure owned by the organization and an IT infrastructure (a publically accessible infrastructure) owned by a third party. Pursuant to the technique 300, the integration engine 250 maps (block 304) the left cloud tenant 121 to a private cloud computing tenant 141 and assigns (block 308) one or multiple available private cloud services 119 to the tenant 141, as regulated by the corresponding quota. Moreover, after the assignment, the integration engine 250 may update the quota, pursuant to block 312.
Rastogi et al., US 10594562 B1, teaches autoscale decision engine 404 is configured to receive the triggers and maintain an autoscale policy. Based on an autoscale policy and optionally the current status, the autoscale decision engine determines whether an autoscaling operation should be performed. In some embodiments, the autoscale decision engine will invoke a script (e.g., a WebHook or Python script) to launch a new instance of a server or terminate an existing instance of a server.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights